Talk:GN-001RE Gundam Exia Repair
About the systems description Guys, I originally put in that Trans Am and its Optical Camouflage is in questionable use due to its extensive damage. The biggest suggestion is due to the fact he never used those features during his infiltration missions, but someone added it, it possibly still can. So I want to see who else agrees or disagrees with that assessment. Your thoughts are appreciated. Taikage - Admin 04:56, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Reason being is that Kyrios had an arm and a leg so it could still use Trans-Am. Also, Exia's drive had plenty of time to restore its particles, so it can definitely use Trans-Am. Just because its not used doesn't mean it can't be used.Gaeaman 788 - is a administrator 06:03, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Do we have a cannonical source that says it can use the Trans-am system? if not, then we should write it in a "questionable" way. Just because it looks like it can, doesn't necessarily mean it can. -Dav7d2 - Insert AWESOME quote here :P 06:58, April 2, 2011 (UTC) It has a GN Drive, and all Gundams with GN Drives can use Trans-Am. Considering we only saw Exia Repair once, Trans-Am may not have been useful in that situation. Speaking of which, in what situations is Trans-Am useful. I remember Tieria taking on a bunch of GN-XIII's and saying that he couldn't use TA in such a tight jamGaeaman 788 - is a administrator 07:18, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Really? so if we end up with a cannonical source stating that it couldn't use trans-am? how would we go about it? Kyrios is an exception because it wasn't that badly damaged, while the Exia repair, hasn't had high end maintenance in over 5 years! a MS like that would need constant maintenance in order to work to its fullest. Its not whether the GN Drive can perform Trans-am, its whether the suit itself can perform Trans-am. Given that most of its components are in dire need of fixing, you can't just suggest it can just because it has a GN Drive. Another problem is whether Exia can "hold together" in Trans-am, given that its takening alot of G-Forces and thrust at once, on a Gundam thats barely holing together. I wouldn't be surprised if it fell apart instantly. Not only that, Setsuna was thrown into a life or death situation like when he faced Ali in the Throne Zwei, he would have used Trans-am in this case, but he didn't!. -Dav7d2 - Insert AWESOME quote here :P 07:26, April 2, 2011 (UTC) So it's not whether the drive had Trans-Am, its whether the suit can do it. We can't just make up stuff, even if we don't have proper sources. I would say that Exia Repair could have used Trans-Am, but the frame probably couldn't take it which is why Setsuna didn't use it. For a Gundam pilot, every battle is a life or death situation, and when he faced Ali in the Zwei, Trans Am just *boom* activated for Setsuna. So him not using Trans-Am makes sense. Exia RE using Trans Am probably would give him a advantage over the Ahead, but not by much.Gaeaman 788 - is a administrator 14:55, April 2, 2011 (UTC) :My personal opinion is that it cannot do it because of the disrepair and frame but truthfully we have no canonical source on the matter. My suggestion would be to simply say in the article that "it is unknown whether Exia Repair can initiate Trans-Am/optic camo or not". We could put a special section in the article with these two names and then just describe that it is an unknown whether the systems can be used. Because this is in fact Exia just damaged (that does have those two systems), we can justify putting it in the list/large article list but because they are possible doubts on whether they can be used, we just insert sentences indicating their usability is unknown. We can at least confirm via reasonability that the systems are still onboard, just that they either be semi-functioning, functioning with risks, or not functioning at all but I think we can reasonably agree that the systems are there since it is Exia. :Thats the best neutral way I can think off to solve the issue with the info we have. To sum up, list the systems then put a sentence somewhere saying that their usability is unknown. Then in a speculative manner, say why. (IE possible frame disrepair makes it impossible to tell or whatever) -SuperSonicSP 06:46, April 3, 2011 (UTC)